UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 98-50005
Summary Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DURENCESS MARSHALL,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court,
for the Western District of Texas
(USDC No. W-97-CR-54-1)
_________________________________________________________________
October 20, 1998
Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Durencess Donnell Marshall appeals his convictions concerning
cocaine base: conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute;
distribution; and aiding and abetting distribution.
Marshall challenges the admission at trial of testimony of the
conviction of coconspirator Lo Ford. Not raised at trial, this
issue is considered only for plain error. FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(b);
United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
banc). In reviewing introduction of a coconspirator’s guilty plea,
we consider (1) whether there was any limiting instruction; (2) the
purpose of the plea’s introduction; (3) whether the plea was used
as substantive evidence of guilt; and (4) whether introduction of
the plea was invited. United States v. Samak, 7 F.3d 1196, 1198
(5th Cir. 1993). Ford’s conviction was introduced to rebut defense
claims of preferential treatment for witnesses, not to show
Marshall’s guilt. Defense counsel repeatedly discussed
coconspirators’ criminal records. Accordingly, we find no plain
error.
Next, Marshall contests the drug quantities attributed to him,
claiming inconsistencies between witnesses. We review this issue
for clear error, see United States v. Young, 981 F.2d 180, 185 (5th
Cir. 1992). Even the most conservative reports of drug quantities
bought and sold by Marshall each week, considered in light of how
long Marshall dealt them, produce an amount far more than the 1.5
kilograms necessary for an offense level of 38. See U.S.S.G. §
2D1.1(c)(1). No clear error exists.
Finally, Marshall disputes the enhancement for his role as
manager or supervisor in the conspiracy. We also review this issue
for clear error, see United States v. Musquiz, 45 F.3d 927, 932-33
(5th Cir. 1995). The record shows more than five participants in
the conspiracy (for instance, the cooperating drug dealers).
Marshall concedes supervising Remy Phillips, enough for
enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b), application note 2
2
(“supervisor of one or more other participants”). Again, no clear
error exists.
AFFIRMED